Biblical Mary!

[Niatero]

That is wishful thinking. Jesus did not say "these are also my mother and brothers".

Just because he doesn't say that in the story doesn't mean that he snubbed them. It always looked like that to me before, but now I see that there's nothing in the text that requires it to be understood that way. As I've said before, I don't like the way that he uses people including children as props for his sermons in the stories, but there's no reason to think that after saying that he didn't go out to meet his mother and brothers. In fact that seems very unlikely to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many believe Titus to be pseudepigraphic and I see no reason to view any claim found in Acts as necessarily true, but your faith is touching. LOL

LOL. Not so much really. I also do not trust Acts. And I agree that Titus is pseudepigraphal. But in the absence of other historical records until later in the first century, I kind of have no choice but to base my comments on these earlier, less reliable sources.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL. Not so much really. I also do not trust Acts. And I agree that Titus is pseudepigraphal. But in the absence of other historical records until later in the first century, I kind of have no choice but to base my comments on these earlier, less reliable sources.

Let's be honest. You do not, cannot read the Hebrew Scriptures as if they were trustworthy in their accounts. Now I realize you're a very smart person, not all believe what naysayers claim about the Biblical accounts, however.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You might be someone that I can talk to about this. It would be nice to have someone to talk to about it.

Well, I'll do my best. Although Jewish, I have certainly tried to study Christianity, and I think I probably know more about it than even the average Christian. But I am by no means a scholar, and certainly have no ability to read Koine Greek.

There's a theory that the in the Greek that is translated as "the Word was God," the word "God" functions as what is called an adjective in English. Considered in the context of the whole Christian Bible, I would take that as saying that it was like God in every conceivable way.

I think this is above my paygrade, as it requires knowledge of Greek.

When Peter says that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of the living God, and Jesus praises him for it, I take that as referring to the king that God told David He would raise from his descendants, saying "I will be his father and he will be my son." It has nothing to do with the way that Jesus was conceived.

I'm honestly not even sure what Peter meant by Messiah. He was Jewish, and in Judaism the messiah is a human, earthly king that rules Israel during the messianic age. But Christians developed a completely different idea of Messiah to mean God incarnating and dying for their sins. So I can't be sure what Peter actually thought.

There's a theory that the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus. I personally think that it was actually Jesus who taught them the practices that looked like worshipping a god. In the gospel stories, he is a god as much as any Greek or Roman god and even more, with more authority and power over human lives than any of them, besides being real. I don't think he actually claimed to be anything that was outside of the range of Jewish thinking, but some Christian followers either didn't understand that or didn't think that others could, so they tried to explain how the Christians could be worshipping Jesus and God at the same time without that being two gods, using Greek philosophy, telling themselves that Greek philosophy was actually inspired by Moses. Different ones explained it in different ways, and various factions formed around those. That led to public feuding which threatened the ambitions of Roman emperors, which they tried to repress with an agreement signed by some of the bishops. That failed miserably the first time, but maybe halfway succeeded on the second try.

Its far too late and I'm far too tired to go into detail, but generally speaking, I am of the opinion that the earliest Christians, the Jewish believers in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, also known as Nazarenes, did NOT believe Jesus was God. It was when Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles that people who had a Hellenistic world view made Jesus into a deity with Paul's encouragement.

The Nicene creed might possibly not be outside of the range of Jewish thinking, as it was understood by some people, but one problem now is that in the minds of many people, possibly most of them, it has been replaced by the Trinity triangle, which totally mangles it and oversimplifies it to fit it into a cute, clever and easily remembered diagram, and all the feuding is about that instead of what the Nicene Creed actually says.

Oh, I'm surprised to hear you propose that. I don't see Jewish influences in the Nicene Creed at all. The Tanakh teaches four times that God is not a man. The idea that a man can be god is completely pagan, and it entered the church via Hellenized non-Jewish converts.

(later) I know that it's inaccurate to talk about "Jewish thinking" in the time of Jesus, but I can't remember what to call the religious system.

I don't see why you can't address "Jewish thinking" at the time of Jesus if you wish. We know there were various groups in Second Temple Judaism (is that the label you were looking for?): Pharisees (bet Hillel and bet Shammai), Sadducees (mainly priests), Essenes, and Zealots. When the temple was destroyed, the Pharisees were the only group that survived, making their views the only views in Judaism.

A pleasure speaking with you.

 

[Niatero]

Well, I'll do my best. Although Jewish, I have certainly tried to study Christianity, and I think I probably know more about it than even the average Christian. But I am by no means a scholar, and certainly have no ability to read Koine Greek.

I think this is above my paygrade, as it requires knowledge of Greek.

I'm honestly not even sure what Peter meant by Messiah. He was Jewish, and in Judaism the messiah is a human, earthly king that rules Israel during the messianic age. But Christians developed a completely different idea of Messiah to mean God incarnating and dying for their sins. So I can't be sure what Peter actually thought.

Its far too late and I'm far too tired to go into detail, but generally speaking, I am of the opinion that the earliest Christians, the Jewish believers in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, also known as Nazarenes, did NOT believe Jesus was God. It was when Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles that people who had a Hellenistic world view made Jesus into a deity with Paul's encouragement.

Oh, I'm surprise to hear you propose that. I don't see Jewish influences in the Nicene Creed at all. The Tanakh teaches four times that God is not a man. The idea that a man can be god is completely pagan, and it entered the church via Hellenized non-Jewish converts.

I don't see why you can't address "Jewish thinking" at the time of Jesus if you wish. We know there were various groups in Second Temple Judaism (is that the label you were looking for?): Pharisees (bet Hillel and bet Shammai), Sadducees (mainly priests), Essenes, and Zealots. When the temple was destroyed, the Pharisees were the only group that survived, making their views the only views in Judaism.

A pleasure speaking with you.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, but I disagree.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses,

I hope we can agree to disagree on this. I realize that this is a core belief for many Christians, and so I doubt there is anything that I can say which will change your mind, and visa versa.

I am convinced by historians and textual scholars that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Each gospel actually has more than one author, and their texts are spliced together, and they were not eye witnesses. Given the mistakes about Judaism in the gospels and the obvious agenda to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews, my guess is that they were written either by non-Jews, or Hellenized Jews living in the diaspora.

But feel free to disagree

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks for the conversation.

It was a pleasure

 

[Niatero]

I hope we can agree to disagree on this. I realize that this is a core belief for many Christians, and so I doubt there is anything that I can say which will change your mind, and visa versa.

I am convinced by historians and textual scholars that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Each gospel actually has more than one author, and their texts are spliced together, and they were not eye witnesses. Given the mistakes about Judaism in the gospels and the obvious agenda to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews, my guess is that they were written either by non-Jews, or Hellenized Jews living in the diaspora.

But feel free to disagree

I'll ask again. Do any of those scholars have degrees in psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology, or do they have input from people with degrees in those fields, for their theories about who wrote what? Also their ideas about how widely a storyteller's styles and apparent knowledge and interests can range look fallacious to me, and without any real ground to stand on at all. I have doubts about much their theories are tested on modern literature. That's just the tip of an iceberg for me about why I have no confidence whatsoever in their self-designated expertise in deciding who wrote what, without any empirical test of it as far as I know. I think it's good to have theories about it, but not to use insufficient qualifications to pretend that there's actually any ground to stand on for rejecting other theories.

(later) I'm not imagining that any apostle wrote exactly the words of any part of any of the gospels except possibly the gospel of John, but I don't see why there couldn't be any part of the synoptics that were originally written by an apostle and later modified and/or incorporated into them. Also, even if they were originally written by them, that doesn't mean that there wasn't any direct input or feedback from any of the apostles.

I"m sure I'm overreacting and exaggerating here. Sorry.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'll ask again. Do any of those scholars have degrees in psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology,

They have advanced degrees in fields such as ancient western history, biblical texts, etc.

I'm not sure why you would imagine a degree in a field such as psychology or anthropology would be relevant.

 

[Niatero]

They have advanced degrees in fields such as ancient western history, biblical texts, etc.

I'm not sure why you would imagine a degree in a field such as psychology or anthropology would be relevant.

That’s okay. Sorry.

 

[Niatero]

They have advanced degrees in fields such as ancient western history, biblical texts, etc.

I'm not sure why you would imagine a degree in a field such as psychology or anthropology would be relevant.

 

[Niatero]

Oh, I'm surprised to hear you propose that. I don't see Jewish influences in the Nicene Creed at all. The Tanakh teaches four times that God is not a man. The idea that a man can be god is completely pagan, and it entered the church via Hellenized non-Jewish converts.

I’m hoping that you’ll still be available for this, in spite of my outburst. Arguing against what you said was totally contrary to my purpose. I thought it might be fun to talk to you about it, and it was.

From my readings, it looks to me like at least one of the bishops was thinking of Jesus as having all the attributes and qualities of God, but not as being God Himself, and he found a way to justify calling that “homoousios.”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I’m hoping that you’ll still be available for this, in spite of my outburst. Arguing against what you said was totally contrary to my purpose. I thought it might be fun to talk to you about it, and it was.

I have certainly enjoyed our chat. I hope we will have many wonderful discussions in the future.

From my readings, it looks to me like at least one bishops was thinking of Jesus as having all the attributes and qualities of God, but not as being God Himself, and he found a way to justify calling that “homoousios.”

Yes, someone else mentioned that to me earlier. It's quite interesting. Thank you for bringing it up.

 

[Niatero]

I have certainly enjoyed our chat. I hope we will have many wonderful discussions in the future.

Yes, someone else mentioned that to me earlier. It's quite interesting. Thank you for bringing it up.

Thank you. Here’s something I’d like to try. I’d like to try telling you what I read into the gospel stories, not claiming any historicity for it, or even being what the human authors actually intended, and see if you see anything in it that violates your conception of God.

It all revolves around Jesus being the ruler of a virtual kingdom consisting of people serving and obeying him, learning together to live together the way he says to live, because they see God in him. Not God the creator himself, but a person with all the power, authority, knowledge and wisdom of God that a human person can have, given to him by God and destined for him by God from the beginning of creation.

(later) I want to say something about my terminology. In my understanding, God talks about the act of His creation as being in our past, not because it actually is in our past, but because that’s a way for us to understand what He chooses to tell us about it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you. Here’s something I’d like to try. I’d like to try telling you what I read into the gospel stories, not claiming any historicity for it, or even being what the human authors actually intended, and see if you see anything in it that violates your conception of God.

It all revolves around Jesus being the ruler of a virtual kingdom consisting of people serving and obeying him, learning together to live together the way he says to live, because they see God in him. Not God the creator himself, but a person with all the power, authority, knowledge and wisdom of God that a human person can have, given to him by God and destined for him by God from the beginning of creation.

(later) I want to say something about my terminology. In my understanding, God talks about the act of His creation as being in our past, not because it actually is in our past, but because that’s a way for us to understand what He chooses to tell us about it.

I'm open to listening to whatever you would like to say. But I have to warn you in advance, if this is an effort to evangelize me (and I don't know that's the case), you would be spinning your wheels. I'm 62, and I've been studying world religions all my life, including Christianity. At this stage of the game, I'm abundantly happy in my Jewish faith. Okay, my friend, go ahead. I'm listening.

 

[Niatero]

I'm open to listening to whatever you would like to say. But I have to warn you in advance, if this is an effort to evangelize me (and I don't know that's the case), you would be spinning your wheels. I'm 62, and I've been studying world religions all my life, including Christianity. At this stage of the game, I'm abundantly happy in my Jewish faith. Okay, my friend, go ahead. I'm listening.

Hm. That suspicion might get in the way understanding what I’m saying, but maybe it will just take longer. Maybe it will help if I tell you about my beliefs. I don’t have any, or I try not to. I have a kind of faith in the original teachers of some religions including Judaism and Christianity, but I don’t claim to know or that I ever will know what they actually taught. I have some views and ways of thinking that I think would be good for anybody to try, including ways of thinking about religions and their first teachers, but I don’t think there’s anything in my views and ways of thinking that can’t be wrong. I’m not a member of any church or a believer in any their belief systems.

Do you see anything in what I said above about what I’m reading into the gospels, that goes against your conception of God? For example, that it’s inconceivable maybe that He could have had any such person in mind as part of His creation?

 

[PureX]

"Biblical Mary" sounds like a porn star's name.

Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOL. Not so much really. I also do not trust Acts. And I agree that Titus is pseudepigraphal. But in the absence of other historical records until later in the first century, I kind of have no choice but to base my comments on these earlier, less reliable sources.

And yet you wrote ...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but just would like to add a wee bit. These house churches had presbyters ordained by the laying on of hands. The presbyters were chosen by the Apostles for their trustworthiness in passing on the gospel.

It just seemed to me that your comment closely resembles a fact claim.

 

[jimb]

Just because he doesn't say that in the story doesn't mean that he snubbed them. It always looked like that to me before, but now I see that there's nothing in the text that requires it to be understood that way. As I've said before, I don't like the way that he uses people including children as props for his sermons in the stories, but there's no reason to think that after saying that he didn't go out to meet his mother and brothers. In fact that seems very unlikely to me.

What "seems" to you and what is written are two different things. You are reading into Scripture something that isn't there, no matter how much you want it to be there.

 

[jimb]

"Biblical Mary" sounds like a porn star's name.

Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

Yes, you can help yourself. What motivates you to write something like this???